I was over a friends house to see his layout and the subject of the new SL automax autoracks and the 86’ box car. He had a few on his layout and asked us to point them out.
We did but with other like cars the detail does not really stand out.
But if you put them side by side the difference is very noticeable. So is it really necessary to pay the high prices of extreme detail if your going to run them on a layout?
Dave
Yes.
I’m older than dirt and still have pretty good eyesight (Cataract Surgery on both eyes) and at a couple of feet I can’t see any difference so it must depend on the individual.
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
For some people, yes. For others like me, no.
If you don’t want to pay the premium price but want the very detailed look, we have a lot of modelers on this forum who customize fairly cheap cars into very detailed ones.
I don’t think I have the skills to do that yet, but it’s something I will probably try in the future.
This is a bit like asking if 23-jewel pocket watches with diamonds on the staff, sapphire on the pallets, rubies on the gold train, and damaskeening under the bridges and under the dial are necessary. Not really, and you can get comparable timekeeping and service reliability much more cheaply. But if craftsmanship of beautiful things appeals to you, and you have the money but not the time and skill to lower the cost by doing the ‘improvements’ yourself ‘at cost’ – there you go!
No. Then again I really don’t care about super detailing my freight cars and locomotives.
Sometime in the future it will be hard to handle it with your hands carefully placing it off and on the layout making sure nothing bends or broken.
[Y] [Y] For more than 50 years, I was perfectly happy to flip the tab on the rear view mirror and night. Now I have an automatic mirror that cost 20x as much and I can’t use if I back into my garage with the sun behind the car.
I watch a guy on Youtube and when he reviews engines and rolling stock, it is not uncommon to find broken piece when he first unboxes the car. That is a triumph of technology over reason.
Sure some people want all the MU hoses, the firecracker antennas. Those of us who will have small kids handling the rolling stock don’t really want broken MU hoses and firecracker stubs.
I do like separately applied grab irons and see thru mesh instead of molded plastic. But at my age, 68, I am not going to throw $50 bills or more at each car to replace my old BB rolling stock.
First off, it is a hobby. “Nesessary” it is not.
Everybody must decide what, or how much, is important to them, and weigh that against their skills, interests, time, and money.
I like well detailed models, I was adding better trucks, full brake rigging, air hoses and cut levers to Athearn cars at age 15…that was a while ago. I was also building wood craftsman kits with separate grab irons and other “higher” levels of detail at that age.
Most of that stuff still runs on my layout today.
And I have my share of new, RTR, high detail rolling stock.
But for me, it is not essential that every piece of rolling stock on the layout be of that detail level, done by me, or RTR.
I am not, and will never be, on a program to replace every piece of “blue box” level rolling stock with some “perfect” high detail model, again, be they RTR or built/detailed by me.
So for me the answer is YES and NO.
Sheldon
The only rub to me is when the detail arms race doesn’t have an alternative. Autoracks are a pretty decent example. There isn’t a, uh, not-high detailed version. I don’t really feel the need for see through sides, because I can’t really see through the real ones in the first place.
I’m more of an impressionist than a realist! All of my modest priced models make a good impression of railroad cars and locomotives when stopped or running. I don’t need the finely detailed models to enjoy running trains but do enjoy looking at the finely detailed models at a store or on someone else’s layout.
Agreed.
I’m actually happy that I model 1954.
Fewer modelers even know if the models on my layout are “correct” or not.
Fewer “ultra high detail” models have been, or are being offered in my period.
And there are plenty of less detailed, reasonably correct models for my era on the secondary market.
Again, I like my FoxValley B&O wagon top box cars, and my Spring Mills Depot B&O wagon top cabooses and hoppers, my Intermountain stuff, etc.
I am a little bit more particular about detail levels on locomotives, but even there, close enough is often good enough.
I do a lot of “minimum effort modeling”, that is adding just enough detail to give a model that extra bit it needs.
Hard to see in this picture, but I have a whole fleet of Athearn heavyweight passenger cars with addtional underbody detail and working daphragms.
It makes a big difference. There is no piping, just the major elements added that Athearn left off. CalScale brake cylinders and tanks, steam vents, generators, Kadee brake shoes, etc, just the stuff you can notice sitting on the track near eye level.
Or these, my modified Athearn 50’s era piggybacks. This is detailed and close enough.
“really necessary?” Is any model train of any level of detail or accuracy really necessary? Of course not. It all boils down to what we like and what we prioritize. The term “model railroading” (or “scale model railroading”) is so incredibly broad.
I know some guys who are super fussy about accurate detail but would never think of paying for a ready to run car detailed to their high standard. Their fun is in doing the modifying and detailing (and this is important: doing the research behind that detailing) themselves. It isn’t a matter of money because if you price out one of those super detailing articles in the old Mainline Modeler, or Prototype Modeler, Rail Model Journal, Model Railroading, or the handouts you get at a prototype modeling seminar, with the parts lists, it often comes out to as much or more than a RTR car that is super detailed. People used to gasp at the cost of a Kadee PS 1 boxcar but price out what it would take to bring say a Walthers or ConCor PS1 boxcar to that level of accuracy and the costs come out very close.
I know other guys who are super fussy about accurate details but would shudder to see their model subjected to a typical operating session. It is the detailing and accuracy, not the “railroading” that they emphasize.
Certainly there is a level of enjoyment in coming closer to accuracy and detail on a commercial model if the challenges are reasonable and the model is still a usable and practical part of the fleet at the end of the day. Just look at the many tutorials Wayne has given us about his tireless efforts to make accurate and attractive rolling stock out of the cheapest possible train set stuff.
I have my feet on both sides of this gulf but I will say that extremes of emotion from either side on the topic seem strange to me.
Non disputatus de gustibus.
Me, I’m interested in operations far more than anything else. Old MDC and Athearn and Details West and Walthers cars are good enough for me. I’m too busy trying to spot the car at the correct spot to worry about if I can see through the end platform or not, and if I’m ever seeing underframe details, something has gone seriously wrong.
Mileage, vary, yours.
Its a need, not for running trains but for all the yards and sidings.
At one time a 21 jewel or better (some allowed 18 jewel or better) pocket watch, minimum size 16, lever set, arabic numerals with a 60 second sweep hand, adjusted to 6 positions and in a condition to not gain or lose more than 30 seconds a week was required.
Alas, now a watch just needs to be “reliable.”
Jeff
(My work watch fits the old standard. A Hamilton 992B Railway Special.)
I suppose that depends a lot on the individual. I don’t consider them necessary, but have bought a couple of r-t-r highly detailed cars, and they were nice enough to use as-is (with a little weathering).
I’ve also bought similar cars as kits, and in most cases, fabricated better versions of some of the parts, not only to make them more accurate, but also more durable.
I’d guess that most of my model railroading friends who visit don’t always notice such details, which doesn’t concern me at all, as I’m not trying to impress anybody but myself (and have succeeded in that only occasionally).
However, I do enjoy the process, and generally would rather buy a suitable run-of-the-mill model, often used and/or abused, to see if I can make it into something closer to the prototype upon which the model was originally based. That doesn’t mean, though, that it’s necessarily “incredibly detailed”…maybe a little better-detailed than it was before I got it.
Almost 20 years ago, I modified a couple of hopper kits from Stewart (now Bowser) to better match some prototypes used in my hometown, following an article in RMC. I was fairly well-pleased by the results, and also got a nod of approval from the guy who wrote the article.
Here’s a photo…
Recently, while looking for another article, I came across the one I had followed, and came to the realisation that I had missed a few things, and perhaps could have done better (I wasn’t the only one who missed some stuff, either, but I do feel that the author did do, in some ways, a much better job than did I.)
To address that, I decided to redo the two cars with which I had been so satisfie
When did the rules change from 19j minimum and 5 positions? I thought those two were standard from Ball’s '‘do’ in 1891 on through to the current age of Accutrons and then quartz.
(I know this isn’t relevant to fancy model cars, but there are quite a few parallels between railroad watches in America and the perceived markets for really super detailed models.)
Some highly interesting things were observed on individual railroad ‘approval’ lists. I had thought open face was a ‘hard’ requirement after 1891 (no hunting-case door over the crystal and disk, and winding stem at 12:00, but apparently some older watches were ‘grandfathered’ in. There were no rules on where the 19 jewels had to go, and this led to some interesting approaches, notably the Howard series 0 or 5 that were good 17-jewel watches with two more applied to the mainspring arbor. Howard also was the home of “jeweling” the banking pins, not exactly what was thought of as the reason for jeweling.
Now, Webb C. Ball in the days before becoming the man who defined the ‘modern’ railroad watch was famous for pointing out anything more than 17 jewels were ‘smokestack jewels’ with regard to reliability. But putting caps on the escape wheel (the sensible interpretation of where the two extra jewels to make the 19 should go for most benefit, as on the Waltham Crescent Streets) is a major improver of reliable accuracy, and capping the lever as well gives you the canonical 21-jewel railroad watch as epitomized in all those Elgin B.W.Raymonds and Hamilton 992s. (Jeweling either the barrel, for a ‘motor barrel’,or the arbor then got you to 23; there were additional things to get as far as 26 but they did no
Yes, IMO, you need some detailed cars. I think people tend to assume that this question is necessarily about ALL your cars when it’s really a question about SOME of your cars.
A detailed car stands out and draws attention to itself. Then the mind wants to believe that other cars are similarly endowed. Often not the case and rarely does it need to be the case. The point is to create an illusion or as one previous commenter might call it, as impression.
But you have to start with something and the better currency you use in buying realism the more satisfied you’ll likely be in the end.
I like Mike’s answer above. When you simply gotta, get 'em. When you’re willing to suspend disbelief (they are toys, after all), and are inclined to let your imagination fill in anything you think is missing or poorly rendered, do so…with alacrity.
As an example, when I want to watch a longer train go by, I make it up with all sorts of rolling stock from different brands with different qualities. My mind makes it look like a train from a distance, and I enjoy that. If I’m trying for realism, say with a stacked photo, camera down in the weeds, I will put my finest items in view.
Necessary? I suspect that depends on who you ask.
I sold my fleet of Athearn BB and Roundhouse cars except for the RTR cars that fit my 94/95 era and upgraded my car fleet with the higher detailed cars from Atlas,ExactRail,Intermountain,Red Caboose, Fox Valley, some Walthers and Athearn RTR.
To be sure while operating my ISL I’m more focus on the car’s number then the details.
Be that has it may I’m not about to sell my Atlas RS-11s and buy Rapido RS11s. I have never and will never will play that game.